Safety First?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
If external manual safeties are so effective at making guns safer, why don't revolvers have them?


Revolvers require at least twice the trigger pressure to fire it in single action. A double action revolver when cocked doesn't take as much trigger pressure to fire. Running around with a revolver chambered and cocked all the time is basically the same as a chambered and cocked Glock or similarly designed gun.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If external manual safeties are so effective at making guns safer, why don't revolvers have them?


Revolvers require at least twice the trigger pressure to fire it in single action. A double action revolver when cocked doesn't take as much trigger pressure to fire. Running around with a revolver chambered and cocked all the time is basically the same as a chambered and cocked Glock or similarly designed gun.


You've got this all wrong, and I'm left wondering where you get your facts.

"Revolvers require at least twice the trigger pressure to fire it in single action" - well, no, they don't. A Glock typically takes about 6-7# out of the box. Some department specify a different connector (the "New York" trigger") which puts the Glock about 8#.

To fire a revolver in single action takes roughly half the trigger pressure of a Glock, e.g. my single action Ruger takes about 4#. To fire a revolver in double action takes slightly more pressure than firing a Glock. My S&W Model 15 takes about 12# for a full double action pull. Roughly double the pressure that a Glock takes, but that's for a double action pull and that's with an unmodified S&W. For comparison, My wife's Beretta 92 takes about 12# for double action, and about 5# for single action. My Sig P227 and S&W 5906 are about the same; 12/5 for double/single.

So, a single action revolver pull is much lighter than a Glock. So is the single action pull on a conventional DA/SA pistol. For that matter, so is the trigger pull on a 1911. They're all lighter than the Glock.

The other claim "There are way more pistols in the world with a real trigger safety than there are not." is similarly unsupportable. If by "real trigger safety", you mean an external, manual safety (like exists on the Beretta 92, or on a Colt 1911), then I don't buy that claim. The Glock has a trigger safety, that requires you to press the trigger to fire the gun. The gun WILL NOT FIRE without the trigger being pressed. That's a "real trigger safety", but I think you mean the former type.

If you mean by model type (more models with than without), it's not at all clear. Ruger, S&W, Glock, Sig-Sauer and Colt, the 5 largest manufacturers of pistols for sale in the US, all sell semi-auto pistols without external manual safeties.

If you mean by pistols sold, well, sales numbers are hard to come by but Glock is about the largest pistol manufacturer in the world. The Glock 19, in particular, is the world's most popular pistol. So, if the largest manufacturer is selling all their guns without safeties, and if the other 4 manufacturers are selling models without safeties, then, "way more" pistols with safeties than without is specious.

Two thirds of the pistols in my safe are without manual, external safeties. H&K, S&W, Glock, Walther, Beretta, Colt, Sig-Sauer, Ruger and Springfield Armory are all represented. So, my own intersection with pistols, whether statistically significant or not, doesn't support your hypothesis, either.

The most important safety is between the ears of the operator.

And that's what failed in this case.

Not the gun.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: hatt
Manual safeties don't make guns safer. They can give people a false sense of security. People accidentally shoot themselves/others with every kind of gun. You just hear about Glocks because of the massive numbers out there.


Yes, a massive amount of them without a real trigger safety.

There are way more pistols in the world with a real trigger safety than there are not. And I'd bet there are less accidental discharges with the pistols that have a true trigger safety.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Glock+accidental+discharge+statistics


But that's the point. This WAS NOT an accidental discharge. It was a negligent discharge. Preceded by several other negligent acts as outlined by Astro. The gun is perfectly safe and will sit and collect dust for infinity, unless some moron negligently pulls the trigger.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
You're talking about safe gun handling, but I'm talking about safe gun design. They are two different things.

Sure they are. I got a Glock 17 back in the mid 1990s. I never shot somebody with it after dropping it. Now, I didn't get to carry it around up here, but I also didn't get drunk and do backflips while being under care and control of it. As was already pointed out, the Glock did exactly what it's supposed to do. It didn't fire when dropped. It fired when someone pulled the trigger. That's what firearms are supposed to do. The vast majority of my pistol experience has been with "dual action only" types (I used quotes, because some I've used were real DAO and some writers call the Glock a DAO, but I don't like applying that technical definition to the Glock, even though it fits the behaviour), and I've never had an accidental discharge, much less shot anyone by mistake.

The point of revolvers is well taken, too. Few have safeties. Maybe the FBI should issue single action six shooters as off duty bar carry for their agents.

It's not the Glock's fault that he fat fingered the thing while picking it up, and has no idea how to pick up a dropped firearm.

02SE's point hits it home. Had he dropped the gun and left it on the floor until the end of time, and no one ever touched the trigger, it wouldn't have gone off. Someone had his finger on the trigger when he didn't want to shoot the gun. This is operator error. I hope he knows the difference between the gas pedal and the brake pedal.

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: Astro14
What really makes a gun safe: keeping your finger off the trigger.

If external manual safeties are so effective at making guns safer, why don't revolvers have them?


At one time I owned a Webley Mk IV .38 revolver with safety. Here's a deactivated example, mine wasn't. The safety is just above where the grip stops.

https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-us/aucti...3f-a3f8015cfd21

I agree with your first statement BTW.



Well...would you look at that...

A revolver with a safety.

I've never seen a revolver with a safety, so, I stand corrected.

They (safeties) weren't really needed with the single action revolvers that needed to be cocked to fire. Pulling the trigger without cocking the hammer did nothing in that case. I guess when the double action was developed, someone thought to put an external safety in place.


I only know of a few revolver models with safeties, most were oddities like the Webley-Fosbery self-cocking revolver (a kinda automatic revolver). We're the same age, if you ever watched the movie Zardoz, Sean Connery runs around with a Webley-Fosbery in that movie. This revolver was designed to be carried cocked & locked, with safety on.

LINK


The Webley Mk IV with safety however was a reasonably widely issued military & police sidearm.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
This WAS NOT an accidental discharge. It was a negligent discharge. Preceded by several other negligent acts as outlined by Astro. The gun is perfectly safe and will sit and collect dust for infinity, unless some moron negligently pulls the trigger.


Doesn't matter if it was accidental or negligent ... the gun went off when it should not have. If that gun would have had a real trigger safety it wouldn't have gone off.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 02SE
This WAS NOT an accidental discharge. It was a negligent discharge. Preceded by several other negligent acts as outlined by Astro. The gun is perfectly safe and will sit and collect dust for infinity, unless some moron negligently pulls the trigger.


Doesn't matter if it was accidental or negligent ... the gun went off when it should not have. If that gun would have had a real trigger safety it wouldn't have gone off.
Just stop bro. Plenty of people with manual safeties do not have them engaged on a regular basis.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 02SE
This WAS NOT an accidental discharge. It was a negligent discharge. Preceded by several other negligent acts as outlined by Astro. The gun is perfectly safe and will sit and collect dust for infinity, unless some moron negligently pulls the trigger.

Doesn't matter if it was accidental or negligent ... the gun went off when it should not have. If that gun would have had a real trigger safety it wouldn't have gone off.
Just stop bro. Plenty of people with manual safeties do not have them engaged on a regular basis.


So ... and when they carry that way it's also more likely to have an unintentional discharge. Happens all the time.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 02SE
This WAS NOT an accidental discharge. It was a negligent discharge. Preceded by several other negligent acts as outlined by Astro. The gun is perfectly safe and will sit and collect dust for infinity, unless some moron negligently pulls the trigger.

Doesn't matter if it was accidental or negligent ... the gun went off when it should not have. If that gun would have had a real trigger safety it wouldn't have gone off.
Just stop bro. Plenty of people with manual safeties do not have them engaged on a regular basis.


So ... and when they carry that way it's also more likely to have an unintentional discharge. Happens all the time.
I've never carried a gun with the safety on. I've since moved on from 3rd gen Smith's so none of my carry guns have safeties. I've never had a negligent discharge, knock on wood.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 02SE
This WAS NOT an accidental discharge. It was a negligent discharge. Preceded by several other negligent acts as outlined by Astro. The gun is perfectly safe and will sit and collect dust for infinity, unless some moron negligently pulls the trigger.


Doesn't matter if it was accidental or negligent ...

the gun went off when it should not have.

If that gun would have had a real trigger safety it wouldn't have gone off.


It will to this guys superiors.

The gun fired when the trigger was pulled, just like it's supposed to.

If the guy hadn't been negligent on multiple levels, the gun wouldn't have fired when it did.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If external manual safeties are so effective at making guns safer, why don't revolvers have them?

Revolvers require at least twice the trigger pressure to fire it in single action. A double action revolver when cocked doesn't take as much trigger pressure to fire. Running around with a revolver chambered and cocked all the time is basically the same as a chambered and cocked Glock or similarly designed gun.

You've got this all wrong, and I'm left wondering where you get your facts.

"Revolvers require at least twice the trigger pressure to fire it in single action" - well, no, they don't.


I meant double action ... just like the red sentence would elude to. Surprised you didn't pick that up with logic, but instead you'd rather start off with an insult.

A Glock typically takes about 6-7# out of the box. Some department specify a different connector (the "New York" trigger") which puts the Glock about 8#.

My S&W Model 15 takes about 12# for a full double action pull. Roughly double the pressure that a Glock takes, but that's for a double action pull and that's with an unmodified S&W. For comparison, My wife's Beretta 92 takes about 12# for double action, and about 5# for single action. My Sig P227 and S&W 5906 are about the same; 12/5 for double/single.

So, a single action revolver pull is much lighter than a Glock.[/quote]

Looking at your examples above, it shows what I was eluding to about double-action mode.
Glock 15 - 6# double action
S&W - 12# double action
Beretta 92 - 12# ... 5# single action
Sig p227 - 12# ... 5# single action
S&W 5906 - 12# ... 5# single action

Well there ya go ... pretty much what I said. A Glock is basically in the same "ready to fire" state as a fully cocked revolver within +/- 1 lbs of trigger force. That's really not a convincing counter to my viewpoint.

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The other claim "There are way more pistols in the world with a real trigger safety than there are not." is similarly unsupportable. If by "real trigger safety", you mean an external, manual safety (like exists on the Beretta 92, or on a Colt 1911), then I don't buy that claim. The Glock has a trigger safety, that requires you to press the trigger to fire the gun. The gun WILL NOT FIRE without the trigger being pressed. That's a "real trigger safety", but I think you mean the former type.


Yes, a real trigger safety is one that will not allow a trigger pull to discharge the weapon. I knew someone would bring up the comment in red above. The "trigger safety" in not a real safety. It's a mechanism to prevent the pistol from discharging if it hits the ground in such a way that the inertia of the trigger might cause it to move backwards and discharge the gun. It's simply a mechanism that unlocks that feature when a finger is press up against the trigger. It in no way pervents the gun from discharging when the trigger is pulled by a finger. That's what a real trigger safety would do. So don't know why you claim the Glock or similar style trigger designs are a "real trigger safety".

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The most important safety is between the ears of the operator.

And that's what failed in this case.

Not the gun.


I agree with you that the best safety is between the ears. And I have never said it was the guns fault (go back and re-read) ... only that IF that gun had an engaged real trigger safety (ie, mechanical thumb safety) it would NOT have discharged when he did the bonehead move and picked it up by the trigger. Wouldn't you agree with that?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
If the guy hadn't been negligent on multiple levels, the gun wouldn't have fired when it did.

The gun fired when the trigger was pulled, just like it's supposed to.


I agree ... and as said before even the most trained and experienced gun handlers can mess up, just like in this case. And yeah, the gun fired when the trigger was pulled (whole goal of a firearm), but it didn't prevent a negligent handling of the firearm ... that's the whole goal of a real safety.

If everyone was so diligent and skilled, all guns would be without any kind of safety mechanism. Just like if everyone drove cars perfectly and there was never any accidents, seat belts wouldn't exist. Or if everyone rode motorcycles perfectly and never crashed, helmets wouldn't exist. There are reasons why most of the safety aspects of products exist, including real mechanical safeties on firearms that prevent some bonehead from pulling the trigger when they shouldn't. Hey, I'll admit ... I like guns with a real trigger safety.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: hatt
safety on. I've since moved on from 3rd gen Smith's so none of my carry guns have safeties. I've never had a negligent discharge, knock on wood.

Yes, they have a very DAO variants if I recall correctly.

Z: There is a "real" trigger safety on a Glock. I'm sure there are a bajillion exploded/cored views on the net. It's definitely designed to not allow a pull from the side, but a finger yanking on the trigger will make a firearm fire, of course.

New FBI policy perhaps should require agents, in the absence of single action six shooters, to wear mittens when they want to engage in drunken antics while armed.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Had he dropped the gun and left it on the floor until the end of time, and no one ever touched the trigger, it wouldn't have gone off. Someone had his finger on the trigger when he didn't want to shoot the gun. This is operator error. I hope he knows the difference between the gas pedal and the brake pedal.


I agree, and the part in red is exactly why a real trigger safety was invented. You can try and fix stupid sometimes. If the gun had a real safety that prevented the trigger from discharging the gun when the trigger was pulled, it would not have fired, and the FBI dude wouldn't be in big trouble like he is now and some innocent bystander wouldn't have been shot.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 02SE
If the guy hadn't been negligent on multiple levels, the gun wouldn't have fired when it did.

The gun fired when the trigger was pulled, just like it's supposed to.


I agree ... and as said before even the most trained and experienced gun handlers can mess up, just like in this case. And yeah, the gun fired when the trigger was pulled (whole goal of a firearm), but it didn't prevent a negligent handling of the firearm ... that's the whole goal of a real safety.

This is exactly why lots of guns have a real safety mechanism on them. If everyone was so diligent and skilled, all guns would be without any kind of safety mechanism. Just like if everyone drove cars perfectly and there was never any accidents, seat belts wouldn't exist. Or if everyone rode motorcycles perfectly and never crashed, helmets wouldn't exist. There are reasons why most of the safety aspects of products exist, including real mechanical safeties on firearms that prevent some bonehead from pulling the trigger when they shouldn't.


There's a real mechanical safety right on the Glock trigger. Don't negligently pull the trigger when you don't want the gun to fire.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
There's a real mechanical safety right on the Glock trigger. Don't negligently pull the trigger when you don't want the gun to fire.


It's not a real trigger safety the same way a mechanical thumb safety is on other guns. The Glock style trigger "safety" is to prevent trigger movement from impact when the gun is dropped or thrown, etc. It keeps the trigger from moving back if there is extreme inertia on the trigger. Other guns like the S&W Shield and others work in a similar way. Once a finger is place on the trigger, it unlocks the trigger with very little force, and allows the trigger mechanism to be pulled fully back to fire the gun just like the little lockout wasn't there.

 

[02SE]

It is a real trigger safety. My Glock 21 trigger won't move, unless I put my finger on the safety, and pull the trigger. If I ever pull the trigger under the same circumstances as this clown, I will be guilty of negligently discharging a firearm, too.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak

Z: There is a "real" trigger safety on a Glock. I'm sure there are a bajillion exploded/cored views on the net. It's definitely designed to not allow a pull from the side, but a finger yanking on the trigger will make a firearm fire, of course.


Then it's not a real trigger safety. A real trigger safety will prevent the gun from firing if the trigger is pulled hard enough to normally fire it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
It is a real trigger safety. My Glock 21 trigger won't move, unless I put my finger on the safety, and pull the trigger. If I ever pull the trigger under the same circumstances as this clown, I will be guilty of negligently discharging a firearm, too.


Yep, that part in red is exactly what I said. That is not a real trigger safety ... think of it as a mechanism to prevent the trigger from moving from other forces beside a finger ... like inertia from a long fall, or if someone threw the gun against a wall, etc. It in no way prevents a finger from making the gun fire like a real safety does.

If you put your finger on the trigger and pull it, the gun goes off ... there is no real safety like a thumb safety. If I carried my 9mm Shield around with the thumb safety off, it would be the same thing as carrying a Glock or similar.

 

[02SE]

And if you pull the trigger when you don't want the gun to fire, you are guilty of negligently discharging a firearm. So again, this is negligence pure and simple. As has been pointed out numerous times, Gun Handling 101 is don't pull the trigger, unless you want the gun to fire.

Anyway, this has become a waste of time. This is why I don't get involved in long-winded discussions online anymore, I have better things to do with my time.